arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.30965

Energy and Latency First: How Deployment Constraints Reverse Time-Series Model Selection

Shruti Bothe·Illyyne Saffar·Ayush K. Varshney
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

AI models, and time-series models in particular are typically ranked by accuracy and deployed under constraints absent from that ranking. In this paper, we study a real setting where these constraints are explicit and measurable: handover pre- diction in cellular networks, where inference runs on the User Equipment once per 40 ms measurement period and must complete before the network acts. The timing bound is hard: a late prediction is superseded by the measurement it was predicting, while energy is a cumulative budget spent for the life of the device. Neither appears in the objective these models are selected on. We evaluate eight architectures under a protocol that screens for deadline feasibility at the tail rather than the mean, then ranks the feasible models on measured inference energy, count- ing the feature computation that precedes the forward pass and is usually omitted. Gradient-boosted trees on handcrafted temporal features are the most accurate model (F1=0.974) and among the cheapest to run, while the neural architecture an accuracy-only benchmark would rank first (CNN-1D, F1=0.914) costs over 3 times more energy per inference under a realistic duty-cycled deployment pattern. We give three conditions under which this outcome should be expected, so the finding applies beyond telecommunications. Accuracy-only benchmarking does not merely under-report deployment cost. It can rank first a model that cannot be deployed.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shruti Bothe, Illyyne Saffar, Ayush K. Varshney. 2026-10-22. Energy and Latency First: How Deployment Constraints Reverse Time-Series Model Selection. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30965

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Are EEG Sequences Time Series? EEG Classification with Time Series Models and Joint Subject Training

As with most other data domains, EEG data analysis relies on rich domain-specific preprocessing. Beyond such preprocessing, machine learners would hope to deal with such data as with any other time series data. For EEG classification many models have been developed with layer types and architectures we typically do not see in time series classification. Furthermore, typically separate models for each individual subject are learned, not one model for all of them. In this paper, we systematically study the differences between EEG classification models and generic time series classification models. We describe three different model setups to deal with EEG data from different subjects, subject-specific models (most EEG literature), subject-agnostic models and subject-conditional models. In experiments on three datasets, we demonstrate that off-the-shelf time series classification models trained per subject perform close to EEG classification models, but that do not quite reach the performance of domain-specific modeling. Additionally, we combine time-series models with subject embeddings to train one joint subject-conditional classifier on all subjects. The resulting models are competitive with dedicated EEG models in 2 out of 3 datasets, even outperforming all EEG methods on one of them.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

The Fenchel-Young Generalization of Bayesian Principles

Conjugate Bayes plays a key role in machine learning, ensuring computationally simple posterior updates. We generalize the variational principle behind this computation by using the Fenchel-Young (FY) inequality, which lets us define a generalized evidence lower bound beyond the KL geometry, and at equality, characterizes new generalized posteriors. A generalized notion of conjugacy follows, defined as closure of prior-potential families that are affine under translation by the loss. We show that such families not only preserve additive canonical updating, but also posterior inference with parameter-dependent supports and tuneably heavy tails. This combination is not feasible with standard conjugate Bayes. We derive a new FY generalization of expectation maximization (EM), which recovers classical and Hard EM, and amortized versions. We show examples, including generalized Bayesian linear regression with closed-form bounded support and heavy-tailed posteriors, and a Gaussian mixture with sparse cluster assignments.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Fragility-aware Classification for Risk Characterization and Robust Learning

Classification models play a central role in data-driven decision-making applications such as medical diagnosis, recommendation systems, and risk assessment. Traditional performance metrics, such as accuracy and AUC, quantify classification errors and pairwise ranking performance but do not account for the magnitude of errors, i.e., the risk of confident misjudgments. This limitation is particularly consequential in safety-critical and cost-sensitive settings, where overconfident errors can lead to severe outcomes. To address this issue, we propose the Fragility Index (FI), a novel performance metric that evaluates classifiers from a risk-averse perspective by capturing the tail risk of confident misjudgments. We formulate FI within a robust satisficing (RS) framework to quantify classifier sensitivity under distributional uncertainty. Building on this, we develop a tractable surrogate-based training framework and establish provable bounds connecting training fragility to ranking-error FI. We further derive tractable reformulations for a broad class of loss functions, including cross-entropy, hinge-type, and Lipschitz losses, and identify specific conditions under which these reformulations are exact. We also introduce an FI-induced regularizer for deep neural networks. Empirical results on real-world medical diagnosis tasks demonstrate that FI complements existing metrics by revealing error tail risk not reflected in accuracy or AUC. FI-based models achieve competitive predictive performance while generally attaining lower FI. In the simulated human--AI diagnostic workflow, they also achieve lower average operational costs than empirical risk minimization.

cs.LG↗